4.7 Article

Quantifying and Numerically Representing Recharge and Flow Components in a Karstified Carbonate Aquifer

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 56, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2020WR027717

关键词

karst; groundwater; time series analysis; signal decomposition method; pipe network model; Ireland

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [13/RC/2092]
  2. European Regional Development Fund
  3. iCRAG industry partners

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Karstified carbonate aquifers are highly heterogeneous systems characterized by multiple recharge, flow, and discharge components. The quantification of the relative contribution of these components, as well as their numerical representation, remains a challenge. This paper identifies three recharge components in the time and frequency domain. While the analysis in the time domain follows traditional approaches, the analysis of the power spectrum allows frequencies associated with specific spectral coefficients and noise types to be distinguished more objectively. The analysis follows the presented hypothesis that the different frequency-noise components are the result of aquifer heterogeneity transforming the random rainfall input into a sequence of non-Gaussian signals. The distinct signals are then numerically represented in the context of a semidistributed pipe network model in order to simulate recharge, flow, and discharge of an Irish karst catchment more realistically. By linking the power spectra of the modeled recharge components with the spectra of the spring discharge, the information usually gained by classical performance indicators is significantly widened. The modeled spring discharge is well matched in the time and frequency domain, yet the different recharge dynamics explain the signal of the aquifer outlet in different noise domains across the spectrum. This study demonstrates the conjunctive use of frequency analysis in conceptualization of a hydrological system together with modeling and evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据